It's not really about guns.

The Firearms Freedom Act now signed into law by six states and apparently about to become law in Idaho seems, at first glance, to be about guns. Hey, the word "Firearms" is right in the title.

But it's not just about guns. It's not really about guns at all. For some weeks, as I noodled it, I've wondered why the states chose this particular issue to hang their point on. I'm still wondering. But I'm glad they chose this as opposed to a money issue, which would probably have been easier to sell to their legislatures but also more susceptible to Federal bribery or blackmail.

There's a good article on the subject here, which starts out talking about the Arizona concealed carry law, a topic I've been following, but then segues off into a much larger issue.

Last year, the Arizona Legislature passed a concurrent resolution known as the Arizona Health Care Freedom Act, which will appear on the ballot this November. If approved by Arizona´s voters, it will amend the state´s constitution and guarantee Arizonans two things:


That all Arizonans have the right to spend their own money to obtain legal health care services.

That all Arizonans have the right NOT to participate in any health care system, of any type.

Arizona is also on the verge of passing a bill that would nullify Cap and Trade (SCR 1050), as well as passing another bill that declares "..any incandescent light bulb manufactured entirely within Arizona and not exported to any other state is not subject to federal regulations." (HB 2337).

Question: What do all these bills have in common? Answer: They all push back against Congress´ abuse of the "commerce clause".

...

Originally introduced and passed in Montana, the Firearms Freedom Act (FFA), declares that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states. The FFA is primarily a Tenth Amendment challenge to the powers of Congress under the "commerce clause," with firearms as the object. (source, FirearmsFreedomAct.com)

States that have signed FFA´s into law now include Arizona, Monatana, Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming, and South Dakota. Idaho´s Governor Butch Otter is expected to sign House Bill 589 into law, which will bring the total to seven states. Additionally eighteen other states have introduced nearly identical bills in their state legislatures. These bills have passed through one or more houses in five of those states.

Arizona´s FFA (HB 2307) is about much more than the right to keep and bear arms. The legislative findings contained in the act affirm that our union is a compact between the people of the several states, their state governments, and the federal government of the United States. It also declares that, "The tenth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Arizona certain powers as they were understood at the time that Arizona was admitted to statehood in 1912. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Arizona and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed on and adopted by Arizona and the United States in 1912."

Furthermore, the act explicitly denies that the federal government has any authority whatsoever to regulate commerce which takes place exclusively inside Arizona´s borders (intrastate commerce), which pertains to the manufacture of firearms, firearms accessories and ammunition. This assertion is clearly a direct challenge designed to confront the perversely expansive interpretation of the "commerce clause" which has prevailed in the US Supreme Court for decades.

(emphasis mine)

I've said in the recent past that the push-back on gun-owner rights caught me by surprise. I'm not going to claim that I said all along freedom would win out on the issue, because I'm firmly on record as having said the exact opposite. Current events are showing that - on this issue alone, you understand - I was wr...

I was wro...

I was not as right as I usually am.

It's my own private Inconvenient Truth. I've believed, and said, for decades that this country had an inevitable trajectory. That it would go from crisis to crisis, each resulting in more federal control of everything we do and say. That it would end in totalitarianism. And that it would brook no revolt or even protest against that trajectory. So yeah, the concealed carry thing surprised me. Frankly, I expected a total nationwide gun ban long before now. People with guns are less likely to act like compliant sheep when pushed, meekly flocking to the shearer. I didn't believe the government would tolerate it. I ... wasn't right about that.

But this new issue is what's really got me pondering. The upswell in states-rights sentiment - and more than sentiment, action - really shocks me. That it's not just happening among some April 19 Tea Party activists, but actually in one state legislature after another, just astonishes me, just knocks me down. State legislators have not traditionally boasted much of a reputation for their foursquare courage in standing up to unreasonable Federal demands.

And I snickered at the early signs of this growing "screw-you" consensus. States passed "resolutions:" well, big deal. Resolutions without the force of law are harmless, meaningless fun. States kicked back against Real ID: well, that was good, but that was about money. A lot of the state legislatures that protested Real ID made it very clear that they'd have happily rolled over on the issue if the feds had agreed to pay the freight. Most state governments are at least as broke as the feds. They can't raise taxes too much without being bodily thrown out of office, and they're forbidden to mint money. I figured most of the protesting legislators didn't really care about Real ID, it was the "unfunded mandate" they were kicking at. Welcome in light of the issue, but ultimately meaningless in terms of the larger picture.

It's starting to look as though I was ... not right ... about that, too. And that possibility makes the future a much more interesting place to ponder. Are we moving toward state nullification of federal laws and regulations, clearly stated and acted upon? Are some states moving toward - dare I say it - the S-word? I can't wait to see how this works out.